In Re Thomas

Court of Appeals of Texas

In Re Thomas

119 S.W.3d 378, 2003 WL 21998751

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedSeptember 5, 2003

Docket12-03-00270-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 119 S.W.3d 378 (In Re Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Thomas, 119 S.W.3d 378, 2003 WL 21998751 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice.

Relator Dan Thomas filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining that his right to a speedy trial was violated. He seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its judgment of conviction and sentence and to dismiss the indictment.

Mandamus will not issue where there is an adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex.1992). The issue of whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated may be appealed after conviction. See Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643, 646-47 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (conviction reversed for violation of right to speedy trial). Therefore, one who complains of a speedy trial violation has an adequate remedy at law. Smith v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590, 592-93 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).

The time within which Relator is required to perfect his appeal has passed. The record does not reveal whether Relator appealed his speedy trial issue. If he failed to raise the issue in a timely appeal, mandamus will not issue. See 38 Tex. JuR.3d Extraordinary Writs § 181 (1998) (mandamus not available where one fails to pursue remedies provided by law). Neither is mandamus available if the desired relief was sought and refused on an appeal previously taken. Id. at § 184. Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice.

Relator Dan Thomas filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining that his right to a speedy trial was violated. He seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its judgment of conviction and sentence and to dismiss the indictment.

Mandamus will not issue where there is an adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex.1992). The issue of whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated may be appealed after conviction. See Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643, 646-47 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (conviction reversed for violation of right to speedy trial). Therefore, one who complains of a speedy trial violation has an adequate remedy at law. Smith v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590, 592-93 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).

The time within which Relator is required to perfect his appeal has passed. The record does not reveal whether Relator appealed his speedy trial issue. If he failed to raise the issue in a timely appeal, mandamus will not issue. See 38 Tex. JuR.3d Extraordinary Writs § 181 (1998) (mandamus not available where one fails to pursue remedies provided by law). Neither is mandamus available if the desired relief was sought and refused on an appeal previously taken. Id. at § 184. Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.W.3d 378, 2003 WL 21998751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-thomas-texapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack